Key Litigation

Aiken & Scoptur, S.C.’s scholarship and understanding of not only existing law but where the law will be, is evidenced by our lengthy list of successful appellate and Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions, which have expanded and protected the rights of persons injured through the wrongful acts of others.

Some of the appellate cases handled by Aiken & Scoptur which expanded the law and protected the rights of injured persons include:

Bartholomew v. The Fund, (2004AP2592) 2006 WI 91, ___ N.W.2d ___ (July 7, 2006) where the Wisconsin Supreme Court overruled the Maurin decision and held that the Estate was entitled to recover for both the wrongful death of Helen Bartholomew and her pain and suffering in contemplation of death, i.e. her survivorship claim.

Leitinger v. Van Buren Management Inc.2006 WI App 146, No.2005AP2030,where the Middle Appellate Court upheld the collateral source rule in Wisconsin and held that the reasonable value of the medical expenses is the amount of the bills, not the amount actually paid.

Young v. Professionals Ins. Co., 154 Wis. 2d 742, 454 N.W.2d 24 (1990), which overturned a long-standing medical malpractice causation instruction which limited the right of recovery of an innocent victim of malpractice.

Estate of Campbell v. Chaney, 169 Wis. 2d 399, 485 N.W.2d 421 (Ct.App.1992), held that no “suit within a suit” is necessary in certain types of legal malpractice cases.

Meyer v. Classified Ins. Corp., 179 Wis. 2d 386, 507 N.W.2d 149 (Ct.App.1993), involved the issue of when and under what circumstances arbitration may be demanded and upheld the trial court’s right to deny a request for arbitration under certain circumstances.

Plautz v. Time Ins. Co., 189 Wis. 2d 136, 525 N.W.2d 342 (Ct.App.1994), which established the rights of beneficiaries under life insurance policies to seek compensation for bad faith.

Martin v. Richards, 192 Wis. 2d 156, 531 N.W.2d 70 (1995), which definitively established that a patient has a right to know the risks, benefits and most importantly, the alternatives available to the patient. This case emphasized that the patient has a right to participate in his/her care and that the doctor has a duty to involve the patient in that decision. It was also significant as it established that a $1,000,000.00 limit on non-economic damages was unconstitutional.